Agreed. I believe they would be wrong, because there are many who feel as you do. Agreed. We do seem to have different political views. The truth/lies/facts are spewed by both sides of the issue, to further their own belief and disparage the other side. The NAU concept, for some like me, is a potentially good thing, the NAU as conceived by others becomes something bad and therefore perceived and presented as conspiratorial. This is where the conspiracy stuff evolves. Once someone has decided it is "bad" this prism distorts all other evidence and even innocuous things then are ascribed nefarious meaning. Here, we agree to disagree. Sort of... Seems like some of that NAU stuff might apply here.
I read most of the report, paying special attention to the recommendation sections. My comment about the title was to correct rhester's misrepresentation of it in his post. I don't see how my reply was flippant, and it was only quick because this is all off topic and should develop in a new thread.
Back on topic- The author of the TNR piece has looked further] into the question of who wrote the newsletters. I'll comment once I sort through this information.
good riddance to him, BTW... I watched the debate on FOX and before that felt he had something going for being about the Constitution even-handed including being pro gun rights,...BUT watching the debates,...he came across as a cranktankerous old fart complaining about minutia.... Let the door slam on his backside...
He's a horrible debater no doubt...and has next to no charisma. But you know what? As far as politicians go, he is one of the most honest one I have ever seen. His message and voting record is incredibly consistent, and seems to actually genuinely care about the message and not himself. I have never seen any other politician decline the government pension program, as well have next to zero dollars of lobby money. All the Republicans can claim to be Tax Payers' best friend and cut spending, but only Ron Paul is the only one to never vote for an unbalanced budget or a tax increase. No other candidate can claim that and be honest about it. You can't cut spending if you support a Trillion dollar war...
For the record I'm not opposing a NAU or something similar that evolves. It will happen in some form or another anyways. When it does you will have reasons to see it in the light of a campaign promise- it will be good for us. That is what I philosophically disagree with. It will be ruinous for the US- at least the type of US that once stood for individual freedom, property ownership, personal economic responsibility and accountability. Back to the end of Ron Paul. His campaign was doomed from the beginning. By his own convictions he opposes the debt loaded on this nation by private bankers and no one is powerful enough to stop that bleeding unless God Himself intervenes and I doubt that is on His agenda. In fact our debt load is consistent with the Bible. There are verses that state without keeping God's laws a people will borrow and not be able to lend- even to trillions of dollars.
Yeah, I watched that too, but I thought the debate moderation was biased against him. e.g. when he was speaking about people blowing Iran out of proportion (which is an interesting non-kooky point of view, objectively), the moderator called him out like he did no single other candidate: "what are you responding to? The other candidate have supported the passive response" of our navy, blah blah. Yeah, but they are mostly saber-rattling against these little speedboats. So I thought Paul got the shaft on that one, and then Romney made fun of him. Uncool. All that aside, I do think he's a little tiny bit nutty. Not sure we can really be isolationist in 2008 and beyond, as much I dislike some of our recent decisions. But yeah, the old guard has decided that Paul's to be removed from the campaign now. I would bet Huckabee will next for their knives. Keep an eye on the New Republic after South Carolina.
I agree - FOX already doesn't like him, as demonstrated by his exclusion from the NH debate. I understand it to an extent - he's kind of a distraction and has no chance to win. That said, he brings a very important element to the debate - he's the only one willing to really discuss issues at their core. I found his answers about the economy (delaying a depression with artificially low credit and solving a recession that was caused by easy credit with easy credit) and foreign policy (they don't hate us for our freedom) to be important things to at least consider and discuss. Unfortunately, talking about that is not politically popular so he gets blasted every time he brings that stuff up. I'm glad he's in the race in that he does provide a very different viewpoint and does represent about 5-10% of the vote, so its not like he's a 1% fringe guy like Duncan Hunter.
On the debate moderation: How bizarre was the question to him about the 9/11 Truth Group? Mr. Romney, how would you stimulate the economy? Mr. Huckabee, do you think we're going into a recession, and what would you do about? Congressman Paul, will you ask your supporters who believe 9/11 was an inside job to withdraw their support?
Duh, it's Fox. The Pravda of the Republican Party. There is only one version of the truth, Rupert Murdoch's. Stay on the talking points or get shut down. If it comes down to The Party's pretty boy ventriloquist dummy and John McCain, watch'em call Johnny Mac crazy.
uh oh!!! the austin naacp head, nelson linder has made some comments regarding ron paul! he calls paul "a very dangerous man". lock this thread up - campaign over! http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_08_29_linder.mp3 http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/NAACP_official_comments_on_whether_Ron_Paul_is_a_racist_3 Nelson Linder, head of the Austin NAACP & longtime acquaintance of Dr Paul discusses Ron Paul’s message of liberty and the local cops’ policy of murdering unarmed black folks when they feel like it. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm this is alex jones, so take it for what it is, but linder was apparently interviewed on his show and these are his words... Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment. Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people. "Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder. "Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added. Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions. Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years. "I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder. "If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added. "What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/ Ron Paul’s Ugly Newsletters For the past few months most libertarians have been pleased to see Ron Paul achieving unexpected success with his presidential campaign’s message of ending the Iraq war, abolishing the federal income tax, establishing sound money, and restoring the Constitution. Sure, some of us didn’t like his talk about closing the borders and his conspiratorial view of a North-South highway. But the main themes of his campaign, the ones that generated the multi-million-dollar online fundraising spectaculars and the youthful “Ron Paul Revolution,” were classic libertarian issues. It was particularly gratifying to see a presidential candidate tie the antiwar position to a belief in a strictly limited federal government. And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold. Ron Paul says he didn’t write these newsletters, and I take him at his word. They don’t sound like him. In my infrequent personal encounters and in his public appearances, I’ve never heard him say anything racist or homophobic (halting and uncomfortable on gay issues, like a lot of 72-year-old conservatives, but not hateful). But he selected the people who did write those things, and he put his name on the otherwise unsigned newsletters, and he raised campaign funds from the mailing list that those newsletters created. And he would have us believe that things that “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed” appeared in his newsletter for years and years without his knowledge. Assuming Ron Paul in fact did not write those letters, people close to him did. His associates conceived, wrote, edited, and mailed those words. His closest associates over many years know who created those publications. If they truly admire Ron Paul, if they think he is being unfairly tarnished with words he did not write, they should come forward, take responsibility for their words, and explain how they kept Ron Paul in the dark for years about the words that appeared every month in newsletters with “Ron Paul” in the title. Paul says he didn’t write the letters, that he denounces the words that appeared in them, that he was unaware for decades of what 100,000 people were receiving every month from him. That’s an odd claim on which to run for president: I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government. But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president, and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government. Mutterings about the past mistakes of the New Republic or the ideological agenda of author James Kirchick are beside the point. Maybe Bob Woodward didn’t like Quakers; the corruption he uncovered in the Nixon administration was still a fact, and that’s all that mattered. Ron Paul’s most visible defenders have denounced Kirchick as a “pimply-faced youth”—so much for their previous enthusiasm about all the young people sleeping on floors for the Paul campaign—and a neoconservative. But they have not denied the facts he reported. Those words appeared in newsletters under his name. And, notably, they have not dared to defend or even quote the actual words that Kirchick reported. Even those who vociferously defend Ron Paul and viciously denounce Kirchick, perhaps even those who wrote the words originally, are apparently unwilling to quote and defend the actual words that appeared over Ron Paul’s signature. Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect “paleoconservative” ideas, though they’re not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism. Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them.
Ugh, why was it so hard for me to articulate that. The reason I called the thread "goodbye ron paul" was because he is in a political checkmate - he is either a) Racist and paranoid or b) So lax that he lets associates send out letters for years with his name espousing views he finds deplorable. Both of those are fatal flaws in anyone aiming for something more than a very, very, very fringe niche in serious public discourse. I'm not saying a guy like this can not deliver babies, have a kind interpersonal demeanor, or have some kickin' ideas for government reform. I'm just saying a guy like this can not seriously run for president, nor can he be a legitimate leader for a national political movement. I don't reject everyone of his ideas outright, nor do I feel in a place to judge him or his supporters. All I am saying is, politically, he is toast.
I just watched some of this guys Q&A on youtube. It is too bad that so many people find him to not be the right person for presidency. What is our national deficit? Do people have any clue about corporate roles in government policy in regard to health care? Do people not see the redistribution of wealth occuring in this country? If you are middle class, you need to seriously listen to this guy and his ideas. The only reason somebody would call him a nutjob or whatever is because they don't have the intellect or foresight to see where our economy is headed as a result of corporate persuaded government policies the last 50 years. Hell, a couple weeks ago, India announced they don't accept the US dollar. India!?! Listen to the guy.
hey big guy, its been a month. have you had time to "sort through" all the info for us yet? i think king cheetah is turning blue over there holding his breath for so long!
Sorry, Ron Paul fans, but it looks like it's over. As crazy as he is, he was a great and much needed voice in the debates. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...es-out-third-party-bid-phasing-back-campaign/ Paul rules out third party bid, phasing back campaign Posted: 12:30 PM ET (CNN) — It's perhaps the most Shermanesque statement Ron Paul has ever issued concerning the potential he'll run as a third party candidate. "I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican," Paul wrote in a letter to supporters posted on his Web site. "I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican Party, so there will be no third party run." But the Texas congressman, who has shocked the political world with his grassroots fundraising success and army of devoted supporters, vowed to press on with his campaign, while acknowledging the chances of a brokered convention are "nearly zero." "But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get," her wrote. But Paul, who has had trouble converting his grassroots energy into support at the ballot box, revealed he's making cuts to his field staff, and indicated he will shift much of his attention to his home district and the reelection race he faces there. "If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen," he said.
The whole thing was so played out that I didn't feel I had much more to contribute at the time. Since you seem so interested in my opinion, however, I shall summarize my feelings for you. Ron Paul represents some unconventional views in today's political climate. Some of those views appeal to a small, but vocal, minority of the electorate that has become so estranged from the mainstream political discourse that they seemingly don't feel the need to scrutinize their own words to any significant degree. Paul himself seems to be much more careful about what he says and doesn't say, which leads me to beleive that it is unlikely that he was the author of the newsletters. That doesn't get him off the hook, though. Some of Paul's advocacies, like the strong appeal to states' rights, are steeped in a history of outright racist implications. Paul ignored the conclusions that his supporters were constantly drawing from his views. Normally, it would be wrong to hold him responsible for the perversion of his issues by an independant supporter. Those perversions, however, were printed under his own name over the span of multiple decades without any sort of disavowal from the man himself. Ron Paul is an extremist, and as such he relies on extremists (like yourself, jo) for support. It didn't matter that many of those extremist supporters were either militant racists, homophobes, paranoid conspiracy theory enthusiasts (again, like yourself), or some combination thereof. For him the means justified the ends. For me that doesn't fly. Satisfied?
